This is a conclusion that I have come too myself. You can have all the chess knowledge from every chess book written, but if you don't develop the correct thinking skills during a game and drop material or miss an opponents threats, it will all count for nothing.
I love chess books, and own too many. From my scientific training the analogy I see is: "you own too many books on quantum field theory". Until you have mastered 2-3 key math and physics books (starting with 'just calculus'), you will not get much from the newest book on loop quantum gravity, even if it's well written, and you like the subject and the author. This has probably been discussed to death before, but I don't need 20 books on calculus, I need 2-3. Then I will need 2 or 3 on group theory, etc. It took several years to master the "basics" before tackling quantum theory starting with 1-2 math books, and not jumping around from one book to another. So even for things a bit more complicated than swimming, I think your point holds.
I'm actually learning a tiny bit of quantum theory at the moment. I currently have 2 sources: Quantum Country by Andy Matschak and Michael Nielsen, and the Essence of Linear Algebra YouTube series on 3blue1brown (I watch the videos while I feed my 4-month-old).
As an adult improver (1400 lichess rapid, embarrassing USCF classical) who owns too many chess books, I couldn't agree more. However, I would like to name drop one book that I really feel actually helped my game: Chess Tactics From Scratch by Martin Weteschnik. He does a really great job of describing what the individual tactics are, what they look like on the board, and how to spot them in your games, and gives good instructional positions in varying levels of depth and complexity. Of the dozen or so books I have on my shelf, that's the one I actually recommend to people at my level who want to improve their game.
My comment on the stupidity of rejecting instructional books got censored. I suppose eliminating contrary viewpoints salves the ego, eh? Libraries were established for a reason. I wonder what that reason was?
Hi Jeff. Believe it or not, comments that disagree with me are my favorite ones, as long as they're expressed constructively. I removed your previous comment because it included inappropriate, derogatory language. Feel free to disagree constructively. Or, you could just stop reading the newsletter.
Nate, one can call an idea “stupid” and that’s no reflection on the person who issued it. A smart person can have a stupid idea. I wonder what negative descriptions of an idea you consider appropriate? Bad? Ludicrous? I had a strong reaction to the “no books” proposal because books written by experts in any field are very useful, and an efficient use of time.
Generally, I study 3 books at a time. I work thru 1 endgame book systematically, 1 book on self-annotated games of a great player and pages in a 3rd book that addresses some specific weakness I just noticed. I understand the point you are making but working thru 1 and 1 only seems like a way to get bored and disengage for someone like me.
When you're in high school you study several subjects at once. I don't see anything different if you study one opening book, one strategy book and one end game book at the same time.
Wonderful article. Please keep up your great writing
Guilty as charged.
This was a wonderfully pragmatic poignant dialogue and instruction. Thank you
This one hit me right in the bookcase.
Lol
Great post Nate, but you forgot to encourage people to still buy your book!
Right. Mine is the only book you need!
This is a conclusion that I have come too myself. You can have all the chess knowledge from every chess book written, but if you don't develop the correct thinking skills during a game and drop material or miss an opponents threats, it will all count for nothing.
I love chess books, and own too many. From my scientific training the analogy I see is: "you own too many books on quantum field theory". Until you have mastered 2-3 key math and physics books (starting with 'just calculus'), you will not get much from the newest book on loop quantum gravity, even if it's well written, and you like the subject and the author. This has probably been discussed to death before, but I don't need 20 books on calculus, I need 2-3. Then I will need 2 or 3 on group theory, etc. It took several years to master the "basics" before tackling quantum theory starting with 1-2 math books, and not jumping around from one book to another. So even for things a bit more complicated than swimming, I think your point holds.
I'm actually learning a tiny bit of quantum theory at the moment. I currently have 2 sources: Quantum Country by Andy Matschak and Michael Nielsen, and the Essence of Linear Algebra YouTube series on 3blue1brown (I watch the videos while I feed my 4-month-old).
As an adult improver (1400 lichess rapid, embarrassing USCF classical) who owns too many chess books, I couldn't agree more. However, I would like to name drop one book that I really feel actually helped my game: Chess Tactics From Scratch by Martin Weteschnik. He does a really great job of describing what the individual tactics are, what they look like on the board, and how to spot them in your games, and gives good instructional positions in varying levels of depth and complexity. Of the dozen or so books I have on my shelf, that's the one I actually recommend to people at my level who want to improve their game.
My comment on the stupidity of rejecting instructional books got censored. I suppose eliminating contrary viewpoints salves the ego, eh? Libraries were established for a reason. I wonder what that reason was?
Hi Jeff. Believe it or not, comments that disagree with me are my favorite ones, as long as they're expressed constructively. I removed your previous comment because it included inappropriate, derogatory language. Feel free to disagree constructively. Or, you could just stop reading the newsletter.
Nate, one can call an idea “stupid” and that’s no reflection on the person who issued it. A smart person can have a stupid idea. I wonder what negative descriptions of an idea you consider appropriate? Bad? Ludicrous? I had a strong reaction to the “no books” proposal because books written by experts in any field are very useful, and an efficient use of time.
Outstanding article! I have a few chess books to get rid of :)
Generally, I study 3 books at a time. I work thru 1 endgame book systematically, 1 book on self-annotated games of a great player and pages in a 3rd book that addresses some specific weakness I just noticed. I understand the point you are making but working thru 1 and 1 only seems like a way to get bored and disengage for someone like me.
I don't have the organizational skills to keep up with 3, but if it works for you go with it.
When you're in high school you study several subjects at once. I don't see anything different if you study one opening book, one strategy book and one end game book at the same time.
But most people don't learn very much in high school!
I second Sundip’s request!